ArticleKnee surgery & related research2021
Comparison of post-operative three-dimensional and two-dimensional evaluation of component position for total knee arthroplasty.
Article in Knee surgery & related research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does Resident Rotation Affect the Learning Curve of Active Robotic TKA? A Study of Surgical Efficiency and Radiographic Precision.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Combining deep learning with statistical shape modelling enables automated lower limb measurements with observer-level reliability using weight-bearing computed tomography.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Kinematic alignment without femoral cartilage-wear compensation for apex-distal joint line obliquity: Effects on component alignment.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Accuracy of Patient-Specific Instrument Resections In Vivo in Total Ankle Arthroplasty on Postoperative Weightbearing CT Scan.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2025Article
- The comparison of three dimensional and two dimensional evaluation of varus/valgus stress X-rays following total knee arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Two- and three-dimensional evaluations following handheld robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Mid-flexion laxity could be identified with continuous flexion-arc gap assessment in patients with a large preoperative convergence angle.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Article
- Restoration of the Joint Line Configuration Reproduces Native Mid-Flexion Biomechanics after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Matched-Pair Cadaveric Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the post-operative three-dimensional (3D) femoral and tibial component positions in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by the same co-ordinates' system as for pre-operative planning and to compare it with a two-dimensional (2D) evaluation. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty-five primary TKAs due to osteoarthritis were included. A computed tomography (CT) scan of the femur and tibia was obtained and pre-operative 3D planning was performed. Then, 3D and 2D post-operative evaluations of the component positions were performed. KneeCAS (LEXI, Inc., Tokyo, Japan), a lower-extremity alignment assessment system, was used for the 3D post-operative evaluation. Standard short-knee radiographs were used for the 2D post-operative evaluation. Differences between the pre-operative planning and post-operative coronal and sagittal alignment of components were investigated and compared with the results of the 3D and 2D evaluations.
resultsAccording to the 3D evaluation, the difference between the pre-operative planning and actual post-operative sagittal alignment of the femoral component and the coronal and sagittal alignments of the tibial component were 2.6° ± 1.8°, 2.2° ± 1.8° and 3.2° ± 2.4°, respectively. Using the 2D evaluation, they were 1.9° ± 1.5°, 1.3° ± 1.2° and 1.8° ± 1.4°, making the difference in 3D evaluation significantly higher (p = 0.013, = 0.003 and < 0.001). For the sagittal alignment of the femoral component and the coronal and sagittal alignment of the tibial component, the outlier (> ± 3°) ratio for the 3D evaluation was also significantly higher than that of the 2D evaluation (p < 0.001, = 0.009 and < 0.001).
conclusionsThe difference between the pre-operative planning and post-operative component alignment in the 3D evaluation is significantly higher than that of the 2D, even if the same cases have been evaluated. Two-dimensional evaluation may mask or underestimate the post-operative implant malposition. Three-dimensional evaluation using the same co-ordinates' system as for pre-operative planning is necessary to accurately evaluate the post-operative component position.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.